Life and Death

I’ve discovered something about myself. It’s extremely difficult for me to write about people who lose their lives because of avoidable chemical exposures.

Of course, that category is very large when you consider the role that chemicals can play in conditions like cancer and heart disease. The long-term consequences of using common chemicals can be heartbreaking, but I don’t find them as difficult to write about as the more sudden deaths.

When I hear about people who have a chemical exposure that immediately takes their life, my writing muscles seem to freeze. I just can’t come up with anything to say. On this blog, I did manage to write about three different young people who all died after using spray deodorant, and in my book, I shared the story of two babies who died after pesticides were applied in a neighboring apartment and of workers who died after using a wax remover.

What I’m currently having trouble wrapping my words around is a different sort of life and death scenario. It’s the story of two women with MCS in Canada. Both looked for safe, affordable housing for years and had doctors and others advocating for them. Both were unable to find an affordable home that kept them free of chemical exposures. Feeling they had no other options, they applied for MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying) and were approved. Sophia ended her life in February. Denise is currently still alive.

Once again I find myself freezing up, unable to find the words to express my horror at this. It’s not that I’m shocked when people with chemical illness choose to die. During the first six weeks after I moved to Tennessee, there were three suicides among my online acquaintances. The pace isn’t always that brisk, but it certainly isn’t a rare occurrence. What makes this worse is that it’s officially sanctioned. People in positions of power decided that it’s acceptable to help people die instead of helping them find a way to avoid the very preventable suffering they endure from chemical exposures.

Fortunately, I don’t have to come up with the right things to say. I can just paste in this link, which takes you to two video clips and a written account of Denise’s story. I really hope you’ll take a look.

I do have one small complaint about the otherwise good coverage. In one of the video clips a reporter says that Denise needs “incredibly specific living conditions.” She has mobility issues, which makes housing more challenging than for someone without them, but avoiding the chemicals that make her so sick she wants to die is completely doable if people care enough. The article says Denise needs to avoid cigarette smoke, laundry chemicals, and air fresheners. Sophia, who died in February, had a similar wish list. She just needed a place to live that was free of cigarette smoke and chemical cleaners.

These quotes sum up the issue.

About Sophia: “It’s not that she didn’t want to live. She couldn’t live that way.”

About Denise: “Denise says she does not want to die, but she can’t find a place to live.”

There are a lot of reasons to force myself to write this post. One is to ask people to pray that Denise will find a safe affordable place to live before it’s too late. Another is to say this: People with severe MCS don’t get symptoms that are simply uncomfortable or inconvenient. Reactions can be life threatening or so incredibly painful and hard to manage that people no longer want to live. We don’t practice extreme avoidance just for fun.

To a large degree you hold our lives in your hands. What you do in your home matters to people around you. It matters a lot if you live in an apartment building, but it can also matter if you live in a detached home. Fumes from your laundry products are pumped into the neighborhood from your dryer vent. The chemicals you use on your lawn fill your neighbors’ air. If you idle your car in the driveway, paint your house with a toxic paint, or spray the exterior of your home for bugs, everyone around you is affected.

Choosing products to use in and around your home may seem like a minor choice. Sometimes, though, it’s actually a matter of life and death.

Chemicals and COVID-19, Part Two

A few months ago I wrote a post summarizing some of what was then known about the chemical connection to COVID-19. I talked about the link between the disease (cases, hospitalizations, and deaths) and fine particulate matter in the air. I also mentioned chemical connections to some of the risk factors like asthma and heart disease. Some new, potentially important information has come to light since then, so it’s time for an update.

Forever Chemicals

The most significant new information concerns compounds that have come to be known as “forever chemicals” because they’re so persistent. These chemicals are in a class once known as PFCs (perfluorinated chemicals) and now generally called PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). PFAS are currently in the spotlight, due at least in part, I believe, to the excellent movie Dark Waters, which brought them into the public consciousness. 

PFAS have already been linked to a wide range of negative health effects, but it appears we can add something new to the list. They may make COVID-19 worse.  A very recent study, still undergoing peer review, found that people infected with coronavirus who had elevated levels of one particular PFAS chemical had more than twice the risk of experiencing severe illness. What’s especially disturbing is that the particular substance, PFBA (aren’t these acronyms fun?), has been promoted as being safer than others in the class because it leaves the bloodstream more rapidly. Unfortunately, it accumulates in the lungs, which may explain the finding.

The Harvard researcher who found the connection also worries about something else. Previous research has found that people exposed to PFAS had reduced antibody concentrations after receiving tetanus and diphtheria vaccinations. In other words, the chemicals apparently reduced vaccine effectiveness. Will the chemicals also interfere with a COVID vaccine? As he notes, “At this stage we don’t know if it will impact a corona vaccination, but it’s a risk. We would have to cross our fingers and hope for the best.”

Unfortunately, PFAS are even harder to avoid than we previously thought. They’re handy for making things non-stick and waterproof, so an obvious place to start lowering your load is by avoiding products with those sorts of coatings. Seven years ago, when they were still called PFCs, I wrote a post noting that “it seems ironic that PFCs are generally used for their anti-stick properties given the fact that they’re very ‘sticky’ and persistent in the environment and in our bodies.”

Avoiding obviously non-stick products isn’t enough, though. A group of researchers recently attempted to determine just how widespread the use of PFAS has become, and said this: “What we found is deeply disturbing. PFAS are used in almost all industry branches and in a much wider range of consumer products than we expected. Altogether, we found PFAS in more than 200 use categories.” They note that some uses were already known, such as in fast-food containers, carpets, waterproof fabrics, ski waxes, batteries, muffin tins, popcorn bags, dental floss, and fire-fighting foams, but that many weren’t. They found the chemicals in hand sanitizers, mobile phones, a wide variety of cosmetic products, artificial turf, guitar strings, piano keys, pesticides, printer ink, and many more surprising places. PFAS frequently show up in the water supply, and have also been found in food as diverse as meat, leafy greens, and chocolate cake with icing.

Gas Appliances

As I noted in my previous post, the state of the air we breathe (particularly the amount of particulate matter in it) has been linked to the number and severity of COVID cases. Now it appears that long-term exposure to high NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide) is more dangerous than exposure to particulate matter or ozone and correlates with a higher risk of death from the disease. An article reporting on the finding notes that NO2 is a primary pollutant produced by natural gas-burning stoves and furnaces.

Cleaners and Disinfectants

Last month I wrote an entire post on disinfectants, so I won’t repeat it all here, but I’ll point out that we now know much more clearly than we did at the beginning of the pandemic how the virus spreads, and that knowledge changes the risk/benefit equation of using disinfectant chemicals.  A New York Times article published after I wrote my post was aptly headlined:  “The Coronavirus Is Airborne Indoors. Why Are We Still Scrubbing Surfaces?” It points out that “disinfecting sprays are often made from toxic chemicals that can significantly affect indoor air quality and human health.”

A recent piece in the Washington Post makes the same point and notes that there’s not a single documented case of COVID-19 being transmitted through a contaminated surface. The authors (three professors) give the analogy of cleaning countertops and doorknobs to try to protect yourself from the effects of cigarette smoke in the air. They add that “the use of all of these extra cleaning products releases chemicals into the air that can be harmful to our health.”

Long-haulers

A growing number of “long-haulers” who have persistent symptoms after being infected with the virus are reporting increased sensitivity to everyday chemicals. Many of us with MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) find familiarity in the story.  All people alive carry a load of manmade and biological toxins inside, and when the load gets too high, sometimes the body turns on a warning system to keep us from being injured further. 

An article headlined “Why Are COVID-19 Long-Haulers Developing Fragrance Allergies?” points out that the main way to cope is to avoid triggers, but acknowledges that it’s difficult to do. Indeed it is. Let’s help ourselves and each other by being very intentional about the products we buy and use.

14 Essential Things to Know About Disinfectants

It’s safe to say that none of us wants to have a serious battle with COVID-19, and to avoid it, we’re reaching for disinfectants in unprecedented amounts. If we’re not careful, though, we can cause ourselves and others health problems that are as potentially problematic as what we’re trying to avoid. Here are some things to know about disinfectants.

1.  Cleaning and disinfecting work in different ways. Cleaning removes germs by washing them down the drain. Disinfecting kills them.

2.  A sanitizer is similar to a disinfectant. The terms “sanitizing” and “sanitizer” are defined differently depending on who’s doing the defining. Sometimes sanitizing is used to mean the process of lowering the number of germs by either cleaning or disinfecting. Others use the term “sanitizer” to mean a disinfecting product designed for use on a person rather than a hard surface, and some say that sanitizers are for bacteria, while disinfectants also target viruses. Yet another definition is that sanitizers kill organisms, but that disinfectants kill both organisms and their spores.

3.  Disinfectants are pesticides. A pesticide is a product designed to kill a living organism. A Texas A&M publication notes, “Pesticides that fight microbes are generally called antimicrobials. . . . About 275 active ingredients are found in antimicrobials, most of which are pesticides and must have an EPA-approved label.”

4.  An EPA registration means the product should kill what it says it will. It doesn’t mean it’s been proven safe. This is from a publication entitled Green Cleaning, Sanitizing, and Disinfecting found on the EPA’s own website: “Many people mistakenly think that if a cleaning, sanitizing, or disinfecting product is sold to the public it has been reviewed and proven safe by government agencies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that products labeled as sanitizers or disinfectants do kill the germs that the product claims to kill, but the registration review does not evaluate all possible health risks for users of the products. Cleaning products are also not routinely reviewed by the government to identify health risks to the user. Some manufacturers choose to have the EPA evaluate their cleaning products for human health and environmental safety through the Design for the Environment (DfE) Safer Product Labeling Program, but this is voluntary and most products are not reviewed.”

5.  Despite the fact that they aren’t rigorously tested, health effects associated with common disinfectants are becoming more widely known. Chemical and Engineering News published an article entitled “Do We Know Enough About the Safety of Quat Disinfectants?” Quats (quaternary ammonium compounds) are widely used in disinfectant products, but they’ve been linked to a number of potentially significant health issues which have been discovered “independently and also by chance.” These include the possibility of birth defects, fertility issues, and disruption of cellular processes.  

Other disinfectant chemicals have their own problems. A publication entitled Safer Products and Practices for Disinfecting and Sanitizing Surfaces says this: “Although all of these ‘antimicrobial’ products have risks, there are a few types that pose greater, long-term risks to custodial workers and building occupants because they contain active ingredients that have been found to cause asthma (e.g., chlorine bleach/sodium hypochlorite, peroxyacetic acid, and quaternary ammonium compounds), cancer (e.g., ortho-phenylphenol), skin sensitization (e.g., chlorine bleach, pine oil, and thymol) or other health hazards. Several also pose environmental risks as well, such as silver and quaternary ammonium chloride compounds.”

6.  It’s not just the people who use them who are affected. The Green Cleaning publication speaks to the issue of workplace asthma tied to cleaning and disinfecting products. The authors note that 80% of those affected were bystanders who weren’t working directly with the chemicals, but were simply near enough to be exposed to them.

7.  Disinfectants can cause health problems both through inhalation and skin exposure. Disinfectant chemicals, especially quats, tend to accumulate on surfaces. They can then be absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream. In an article on chemical exposures in the workplace, the CDC notes that absorption of chemicals through the skin may be the most significant route of exposure in some cases, and that cleaners are among the workers at risk.

For children in particular, the route may be more direct because chemicals end up on hands, and hands end up in mouths. In an “Ask the Professor” column, the authors state that this can lead to intake that’s more than 2,000 times higher than normal. For some disinfectant chemicals, a 3-year-old takes in 55 times more than an adult does.

8.  Disinfectants can’t get to germs on a surface to kill them unless the surface has been cleaned. This has been described as trying to vacuum the floor without picking up the toys and clothes there first.

9.  If a surface has been well cleaned, it may not need to be disinfected. An environmental expert noted that more than 90% of microorganisms on a surface can be removed with soap, water, and a microfiber cloth, which is potentially more effective than using disinfectants on a surface that hasn’t been cleaned. He said, "You always want to be balancing risks and benefits, and you want to be using the safest products possible in the safest way possible. You could use a grenade to kill a fly, but a fly swatter will work just as well and cause far less damage." A guide to safer disinfectants notes that the FDA banned 19 antimicrobial ingredients from soap in 2016, because plain soap and water without the disinfectant chemicals were found to be just as effective.

10.  Disinfectants may not be as important in the fight against sickness as we seem to think they are. A publication on talking to your child’s school about using safer products mentions a study which measured bacteria on children’s hands and on classroom surfaces. The researchers found that the amount of bacteria on hands was associated with how often kids got sick with colds or flu, but that the amount of bacteria on surfaces wasn’t a factor. The same publication notes, “There is no evidence that shows using disinfecting wipes, sprays, or antibacterial soaps are any more effective at preventing illness in the classroom than washing with regular soap and water.” Regarding COVID-19 in particular, the Centers for Disease Control says that “it may be possible” to be infected through touching a surface, but that it isn’t thought to be a primary route of transmission. 

11.  The focus on surface disinfection may distract us from what actually works. An article in The Atlantic calls the widespread use of disinfectants “hygiene theater” and provides this observation: “Establishments are boasting about their cleaning practices while inviting strangers into unventilated indoor spaces to share one another’s microbial exhalations. This logic is warped. It completely misrepresents the nature of an airborne threat. It’s as if an oceanside town stalked by a frenzy of ravenous sharks urged people to return to the beach by saying, We care about your health and safety, so we’ve reinforced the boardwalk with concrete. Lovely. Now people can sturdily walk into the ocean and be separated from their limbs.” 

12.  Disinfectants are often used improperly. Like other pesticides, there are safety laws that govern how they’re used. The Texas A & M article points out that instructions on disinfectant labels aren’t just suggestions. They say, “Using even a little more disinfectant than the label allows in a cleaning solution, or failing to wear the proper safety gear specified on the label, to give two examples, is a violation of state and federal pesticide laws.”

Many establishments are using sprayers, misters, or foggers to apply disinfectant products, which often doesn’t meet label requirements. The World Health Organization warns that spraying or fogging disinfectants “will not be effective and may pose harm to individuals.”

Many people are especially concerned that students in school settings are being given disinfectant wipes for cleaning their own desks. The EPA warns against this, pointing out that labels on disinfectants all say “Keep Out of Reach of Children.”

13.  Their use can lead to stronger, medication-resistant germs.

Benzalkonium chloride (BAC) is one of the most common active ingredients found in disinfectant products, including wipes and antibacterial soaps. Researchers have found that when bacteria is exposed to low levels of BAC, its tolerance can increase up to 500-fold. Microbial resistance is especially likely to develop when disinfectants are used improperly, such as on a surface that hasn’t been cleaned first.

14.  All disinfectants are not created equal. Some ingredients are much more problematic than others. A quick way to gauge the relative toxicity of a commercial disinfecting product is to look at the “signal word” on the label. It will say either “Danger,” “Warning,” or “Caution.”  The products with a “Danger” label are thought to be the most toxic, and those that say “Caution,” the safest. Within each category, there are products with varying degrees of safety. 

Commercial disinfectants are generally mixtures of many different compounds, so even if the first ingredient listed is considered safe, the product as a whole may not be. Fragrances are commonly added to disinfectant products, and they add many chemical hazards without increasing effectiveness in any way.

Remember that you may not need a disinfectant at all if you clean surfaces well (especially with a microfiber cloth), and if you do decide you need one, there are time-tested options. As one expert in environmental chemicals notes, “Hydrogen peroxide, citric acid, or octanoic acid are safe and effective,” and they’re all listed by the EPA as effective against the virus that causes COVID-19. In fact, research finds hydrogen peroxide-based disinfectants to be more effective than quat-based products.

Microbes can certainly cause problems, and so can antimicrobials. I pray you’ll stay safe from both.

Chemicals and COVID -19

A recent study determined that there are more than 350,000 chemicals and chemical mixtures registered for production and use, a number three times as high as previously estimated. Up to 70,000 of these chemicals are described ambiguously and more than 50,000 are classified as “confidential,” leading to an enormous gap in knowledge. Given the woeful lack of data and study, it isn’t possible to fully understand how chemicals in the environment may be making us more susceptible to COVID-19. We do know enough, though, to take some prudent steps.  Here’s some of what’s known at this point:

1. The numbers of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are all linked to levels of fine particulate matter in the air.

Particulate matter is an airborne mixture of solid and liquid particles. The smaller or finer the particles, the more problematic they are for human health, because they can more easily evade defenses. Several recent studies examined the relationship of particulate air pollution to COVID-19. A study by the World Bank Group found that the level of fine particulate matter was a highly significant predictor of how many confirmed cases and hospital admissions there would be in a geographical area. They report that a pollution increase of 20 percent may increase COVID-19 cases by nearly 100 percent. The researchers controlled for health-related preconditions and demographic factors and note that patterns suggest the number of cases is not simply related to population density.

Particulate pollution is also associated with COVID-19 morbidity. The Guardian reports on a US study finding that “even a tiny, single-unit increase in particle pollution levels in the years before the pandemic is associated with a 15% increase in the death rate.”  It further notes that long-term exposure to particle pollution was already known to increase the risk of death from all causes, but that in the case of COVID-19 deaths, the increase was 20 times higher. The correlation held when poverty levels, smoking, obesity, and availability of COVID-19 tests and hospital beds were factored in. It also held when New York City (with many cases) and counties with few cases were removed from the data pool.

2. Indoor air is generally more polluted than outdoor air.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that the air inside homes and other buildings tends to be more polluted than outdoor air even in the most populated and industrialized cities. It’s easy to feel helpless about our exposure to outdoor air pollution, but to a large degree, we can control our indoor environments.

Particulate pollution inside a home or other building can come in many forms. Combustion (burning candles or incense, using a fireplace, etc.) is a significant contributor. Household dust is also a source, and can lodge in carpets, sofas, chairs, curtains, and bedding and easily become airborne when, for example, carpets are walked on or people sit on sofas or chairs. For multiple reasons (some of which I’ll discuss later), it’s wise to address as many sources of toxicity inside a building as possible. Different types of contamination interact. As one website explains, “Particles in air are either directly emitted, for instance when fuel is burnt and when dust is carried by wind, or indirectly formed, when gaseous pollutants previously emitted to air turn into particulate matter.”

3. There are known risk factors for COVID-19 complications, and known chemical connections to them.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that people at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19 include those with lung disease or asthma, obesity, diabetes, kidney or liver disease, and heart conditions. The list of chemicals that can contribute to these conditions is long.

Researchers tested 50 types of consumer products for 66 chemicals related to asthma or hormone disruption (associated with diabetes and obesity) and found 55 of them. Implicated chemicals include those found in fragrances, cleaners, cosmetics, plastic, hair care products, detergents, and more. Some of the highest concentrations of problematic chemicals were found in fragranced products, such as dryer sheets, air fresheners and perfumes. Vinyl was also a significant source of exposure.

Because the kidney and liver are involved in detoxifying chemicals, all exposures can stress and affect them. The National Kidney Foundation notes that kidney disease may be associated with herbicides, pesticides, air pollution, and heavy metal exposure. There are at least 123 chemicals associated with fatty liver, according to a study in Toxicologic Pathology. A significant number are found in pesticides (including herbicides and fungicides). Solvents, plasticizers, fragrances, paints, polishes, and dyes are also sources. Heart disease is likewise associated with a long list of chemical exposures, including (according to an article in Interdisciplinary Toxicology) those found in pesticides, cleaning products, plastic, adhesives, paints, and many other products.

4.  It’s wise to choose disinfectants carefully.

In a warning posted soon before COVID-19 became big news, Consumer Reports noted that many people may not know that products labeled “disinfecting” contain EPA-registered pesticides. The report notes that people who use disinfectants and cleaners regularly in their work (janitors and healthcare workers, for example) have higher rates of asthma. According to Newsweek, nurses who cleaned surfaces with disinfectants at least once a week had a 24 to 32 percent higher risk of developing COPD than nurses who used the products less often.

An article entitled Safer Disinfecting at Home in the Times of Coronavirus states that quats (quaternary ammonium chlorides, commonly found in disinfectants) are associated with a list of problems, including breathing difficulty, skin irritation, reproductive harm (including possible fertility and birth defect issues) and antimicrobial resistance. Chlorine bleach can also be problematic. The author recommends using disinfectants containing hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, lactic acid, citric acid, or thymol.

5. Ventilation is our friend.

Information from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicates that fresh air and sunlight seem to have prevented deaths among those infected. An article on the subject reports that “in the 1960s, Ministry of Defence scientists proved that fresh air is a natural disinfectant. Something in it, which they called the Open Air Factor, is far more harmful to airborne bacteria — and the influenza virus — than indoor air. . . . Their research also revealed that the Open Air Factor’s disinfecting powers can be preserved in enclosures — if ventilation rates are kept high enough.”

Adequate ventilation is known to limit the spread of airborne pathogens in healthcare environments. The author of an article entitled Could the Indoor Air Quality of Our Buildings Become Part of the COVID-19 Playbook? asks whether addressing ventilation in other buildings might likewise be part of an anti-viral strategy (which also includes reducing indoor contaminants). The article notes that in their publication Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the CDC recommends increasing ventilation rates and the percentage of outdoor air.

6. Every exposure matters

There’s been a lot of talk lately about “viral load.” The viral load, however, is only a small part of a person’s overall toxic load, or toxic body burden. There are natural and man-made toxins inside every human being (even newborns). Some chemicals are metabolized relatively quickly and others stick around for decades or even a lifetime. Some chemicals have been shown to directly affect the immune system, but every substance added to the body requires resources to manage and takes a person one step closer to the tipping point at which staying healthy is no longer possible.

It can be helpful to know what chemicals are likely to cause what symptoms or diseases, or to know whether you have a genetic weakness that might make you more susceptible to the effects of a certain class of compounds. It isn’t necessary to know that, though, in order to begin to protect yourself.

A guide to addressing indoor air pollution during lockdown and beyond suggests the following:

• Minimize use of air fresheners, pesticides, harsh cleaning products, aerosol sprays, and adhesives.

• Reduce indoor burning.

• Use an exhaust fan or open windows or doors.

To those, I would add the following suggestions:

• Keep things clean (using simple, non-toxic products) and reduce the number of surfaces that hold dust. It’s not a quick, easy fix, but removing carpet can make a big difference.

• Go fragrance free. A single fragrance can contain several hundred chemicals. (Also, fragrances in the products you use affect others around you as well.)

• Determine how toxic your personal care products are and make changes if necessary. The Skin Deep database is a good source of information.

• Reduce plastic use, especially in the kitchen.

• Eat organic food.

Much needs to be done on a societal level to help us stay healthy, but there’s also much that each of us can do personally. Now is a good time to do it.

A Game of "What If"

I’ve been writing this post in my head, wondering when the best time would be to share it. When will everyone staying home because of COVID-19 find the novelty wearing off?  When will most people really start to feel the challenge of seeing the same walls day after day, of feeling isolated and alone, of realizing the world is full of airborne threats to be dodged and managed?

This could be an important opportunity for the chemically ill community – maybe the closest we’ll ever get to being understood by the healthy population. It seems like a good time to play a game of “What If.” Here goes.

• What if you had to stay home to avoid the virus, not only for weeks or months, but for years, even decades, on end?

• What if people who were immune to the virus (or thought they were) put it in the air intentionally? What if they rubbed it on their bodies and infused their clothes with it and sprayed it in public buildings and in their homes and yards?

• What if people constantly told you or implied that you were exaggerating the problems the virus could cause or that your beliefs about it were a sign of mental illness? What if they told you over and over again that it wouldn’t affect you if you didn’t believe it would?  What if there was a powerful, well-funded virus lobby that worked hard to shape the opinions of medical professionals, employers, and the general public?

• What if the “We’re all in this together” mantra wasn’t true?  What if you were one of a minority of people who had to stay home? What if most people were out living their lives and were too busy to find ways to include you?

• What if you had been staying home alone for years, asking businesses, medical facilities, schools, churches and other organizations if they could either provide a virus-free space or online connection options, but they ignored you?  What if many people were suddenly forced to stay home for a while, and online opportunities instantly appeared? 

How would you feel? What would you hope others would do in the future? Replace the word “virus” with “chemicals” and you have the reality that those of us with chemical illness face. We try to find or create safe spaces and we shelter in them, working hard to keep them untainted as toxins are introduced from the actions and choices of others. When we leave our homes, we protect ourselves as best we can, but instead of being worried about potential future problems, we often experience symptoms, sometimes excruciating and life-threatening ones, immediately on being exposed. As with virus prevention, we’ve learned that the easy solutions (masks and air filters) aren’t enough and that we can only stay well if others take the problem seriously, too.

I want your life to improve, but I also want you to remember how you feel now. Human nature being what it is, though, I’m afraid you won’t. Recently I’ve been learning about the hot-cold empathy gap. The term describes the fact that when we’re in a “hot” state (being driven by visceral forces like anger, hunger, sexual desire, etc.) we have trouble remembering what it’s like not to be in that state and vice versa. It leads to a lack of empathy both for ourselves and for others. Right now you have a taste of the frustration, anxiety, and loneliness we experience, but once things calm down, the memories and empathy will fade.

Because of that, I’d like to ask you to act now to make some changes. There are two avenues of change needed. We need more safe spaces we can enter in person, and we need more online connection options.

What can you do now to make your home and other spaces more healthy and accessible?  Can you remove fragranced products? Can you switch to safer cleaners? Can you change the way you deal with bugs and weeds?

How can you increase online connection options?  Workplaces, schools, and churches have all discovered that the technology isn’t hard to master. You’ve proven you can do it. The trick is that what works when everyone is logging into a meeting from their own computer doesn’t work as well when most people are in one room and there are one or two trying to access the meeting from elsewhere. Sometimes only the person leading the meeting can be seen and heard by the online participants, which makes group discussion problematic. I would tell you what the best options are for combating the issue if I knew. I believe a multi-directional microphone is part of the answer. If someone with experience in what works would provide the information in the comments section, I would very much appreciate it. (If you comment on the blog itself rather than on Facebook or Twitter, more people will be able to see it.)

The book of Genesis tells us about Joseph, whose life fell apart to the point that he ended up in prison, through no fault of his own. Pharaoh’s cupbearer ended up there, too, and Joseph interpreted a dream for him and predicted that he would soon be released and back in Pharaoh’s good favor. Joseph had a request for his fellow inmate: “When all goes well with you, remember me and show me kindness; mention me to Pharaoh and get me out of this prison” (Genesis 40:14). Verse 23 tells us what happened when the cupbearer was released: “[He], however, did not remember Joseph; he forgot him.”

We in the chemical illness community are like Joseph. Suddenly the cells are full of people who will soon be released. We’re asking, pleading, begging, “Please, remember us when you’re free again and show us kindness. Help us get out of our prison.”

What if you acted now to make changes?  What if you didn’t forget us when your life opened up again?  What if?

Chemical Sensitivity Isn't Rare

In my last post, I talked about the long process of writing and publishing my book, and said I could see the finish line, and thought I’d be able to crawl across it soon.  I still see it, but the crawling continues to be slow. 

The process has been so slow, in fact, that at some level I’m surprised that the need for the book still exists.  When I started writing, I would have assumed that by the end of 2019, we’d be more widely aware that the vast majority of chemicals in everyday products aren’t regulated or tested for safety and that we’re all being affected.  I would have predicted a broader understanding that a growing number of us have bodies that react strongly and obviously to chemical exposures, and that we can be the warning sign for people whose bodies react more slowly or in less conspicuous ways.  I would have presumed that people in power would have taken more steps to protect us.

Unfortunately, I don’t see the progress I would have expected.  In fact, in many ways, the toxicity issue appears to be getting worse.  The number of people whose bodies have become so overwhelmed that they developed Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is proof of that.

A number of studies over the years have looked at the prevalence of MCS.  The last one, published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 2018 , found that over a quarter of the U.S. population (25.9%) reported being chemically sensitive, and 12.8% had been medically diagnosed with MCS. The author, Dr. Anne Steinemann, noted that “prevalence of diagnosed MCS has increased over 300%, and self-reported chemical sensitivity over 200%, in the past decade.”

Here are more quotes from the study:

·        Multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) is a medical condition characterized by adverse health effects from exposure to common chemicals and pollutants, from products such as pesticides, new carpet and paint, renovation materials, diesel exhaust, cleaning supplies, perfume, scented laundry products, and air fresheners.

·        MCS can cause a range of acute, chronic, multiorgan, and disabling health effects, such as headaches, dizziness, cognitive impairment, breathing difficulties, heart palpitations, nausea, mucous membrane irritation, and asthma attacks.

·        When exposed to fragranced consumer products, 86.2% of those with MCS experience one or more types of health problems, including respiratory difficulties (50.3%), migraine headaches (46.9%), mucosal symptoms (46.9%), skin problems (37.9%), and asthma attcks (31.7%).

·        Specific exposures triggering health problems include air fresheners and deodorizers (67.6%), scented laundry products coming from a dryer vent (57.9%), being in a room recently cleaned with scented products (67.6%), being near someone wearing a fragranced product (65.5%), and in general fragranced consumer products (73.1%).

·        For 76.0% of people with MCS, the severity of these health problems was potentially disabling according to the criterion of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), asked by the question: “Do any of these health problems substantially limit one or more major life activities, such as seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, or working, for you personally?”

·        58.6% of individuals with MCS are unable to use public restrooms that have an air freshener, deodorizer, or scented product; 55.2% are unable to wash their hands in a public place if the soap is fragranced; 63.4% enter a business but then want to leave as quickly as possible due to a fragranced product; and 70.3% have been prevented from going someplace because of the presence of a fragranced product that would make them sick.

·        While researchers continue to investigate which chemicals or mixtures of chemicals in fragranced consumer products could be associated with adverse effects, a practical step in the meantime would be to reduce exposure to the products.

Yep.  Seems like common sense, doesn’t it?  Synthetic fragrances and other everyday chemicals can make healthy people sick and sick people sicker.  They’re a completely unnecessary barrier that keeps an ever-increasing number of people from accessing basic services and attending church and other public gatherings. Things aren’t going to improve unless we decide to improve them. Let’s turn this around.

Not There Yet: ADA Compliance

The death of President George H. W. Bush has prompted discussion of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which he signed into law during his time in office. The former director of the National Council on Disability described the ADA as “in effect the Civil Rights Act for people with disabilities in the United States.” It promised access to public spaces and an end to discrimination.

There’s no question that the ADA has improved life for people with disabilities. There’s also no question that we still have a long way to go, perhaps especially when dealing with poorly understood disabilities such as chemical illness. There’s no exhaustive list of disabilities covered under the ADA. Instead, it applies to conditions that substantially limit one or more life activities. A webpage on employment law provides a list of 25 and states that “If any of these above tasks are affected by your multiple chemical sensitivities, then you probably qualify as having a disability under the ADA.” The Job Accommodation Network offers suggestions for accommodating people who react to chemicals in the workplace.

Unfortunately, qualifying for accommodations and receiving them are two very different things. On a regular basis I read the accounts of people with chemical illness fighting hard to stay in work situations which are making them sicker by the day. Although public buildings such as schools, doctor’s offices, restaurants, hotels, theaters, grocery stores, and shopping malls are all directed to comply with the ADA, access for people with chemical sensitivities tends to be limited and problematic.

It’s unfortunate that sometimes change only comes when forced, but however it comes, progress is welcome. The city of Detroit was ordered to pay an employee $100,000 for failing to address her ongoing reactions to a co-worker’s perfume, and within a week, according to the book The Case Against Fragrance, the city instituted a fragrance-free policy in all its workplaces. The Labor Law Center notes that it also added this to its ADA Handbook: “Our goal is to be sensitive to employees with perfume and chemical sensitivities. Employees who are sensitive to perfumes and chemicals may suffer potentially serious health consequences. In order to accommodate employees who are medically sensitive to the chemicals in scented products, the City of Detroit requests that you refrain from wearing scented products, including but not limited to colognes, after-shave lotions, perfumes, deodorants, body/face lotions, hair sprays or similar products. The city of Detroit also asks you to refrain the use of scented candles, perfume samples from magazines, spray or solid air fresheners, room deodorizers, plug-in wall air fresheners, cleaning compounds or similar products. Our employees with medical chemical sensitivities thank you for your cooperation.”

Churches must comply with portions of the ADA, but are exempt from other provisions unless their buildings are used by covered organizations. If your church isn’t forced to comply, should it do so anyway? A Christianity Today posting argues in the affirmative for two basic reasons: all people are of equal worth and deserve inclusion, and the church is stronger when it welcomes and respects everyone. The president of the nonprofit organization RespectAbility notes that if people with disabilities aren’t welcomed in a church, their family members may also be unlikely to attend. She notes that one in five Americans has a disability and that 52% of Americans have a loved one who is disabled. She states, “It is a massive loss for churches if they don’t have people with disabilities in their congregation.”

I’m grateful for the work that President Bush did to advance the cause of the disabled and I look forward to seeing accessibility increase. As Bush said when he signed the ADA into law, “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.”

Millennials, Chemicals, and Church Attendance

I’m not a millennial and I don’t play one on TV. (The fact that I used that reference and actually remember where it came from is proof, if you needed any.) I often read articles about millennials, though, partly just out of general curiosity and partly because I have a couple of sons in that age group. Lately there seem to be a lot of articles about things millennials aren’t buying or using. If you type “millennials don’t use” into the Google search bar, suggested endings to the sentence include “doorbells,” “credit cards,” “napkins,” “email” and “fabric softener.”

In part I read what I can about millennials because I’ve been trying to figure out whether our society is making progress in understanding the enormous problem of toxins in common products. Is the younger generation more aware of the issue and more likely to make changes? Sometimes I think so and sometimes I don’t. The decline in the use of fabric softeners, for instance, has been seen by some as a sign that millennials prefer to use fewer chemicals. Others say it’s simply related to economics and lifestyle. There are confusing trends. While fabric softener use is declining, the use of “scent beads” in the laundry is increasing, which is certainly unfortunate.

One widely publicized fact about millennials is that they’re much less likely than previous generations to attend church. There are certainly plenty of theories about why that is. I tend to pay most attention to the articles written by millennials themselves, and one in particular got my attention.

It’s titled "12 Reasons Millennials Are Over Church” and what made me sit up and take notice is reason number nine. The author writes, "We want you to talk to us about controversial issues (because no one is). People in their 20’s and 30’s are making the biggest decisions of their entire lives: career, education, relationships, marriage, sex, finances, children, purpose, chemicals, body image. We need someone consistently speaking truth into every single one of those areas.” Did you catch that? “Chemicals” was on the list. The author says, in essence, that one of the reasons people from his generation are leaving the church is because no one is speaking truth to them about chemicals. Wow.

There's a truth about chemicals that needs to be spoken. The truth is that there aren’t sufficient regulations in the United States to keep unsafe products off the market or to remove those already being sold, and the implications for human health are staggering. Health advocates continue to wage a David and Goliath battle against well-funded industry interests in an attempt to introduce meaningful legislative change, but as it now stands, we must each take responsibility for educating ourselves and acting on what we learn. I believe with all my heart that the people of God have a responsibility to confront this issue and to be the ones who demonstrate that we value human beings enough to be counter-cultural in the products we buy and use.

How about it, friends? Can we open our eyes to the importance of this? Can our churches start with easy steps like removing synthetically scented air fresheners, switching to fragrance-free soaps, and using less toxic cleaning products? Can we get to the point where we think about toxicity when we build or renovate? This is an issue of health — not just the physical health of humans made in the image of God, but the spiritual health of a generation that is watching us for signs of leadership and courage. We can do it. Let’s start now.

Non-Toxic Oven Cleaning

Thanksgiving weekend has come to a close, and for those who hosted guests, it’s time to put things back in order. If this means cleaning an oven from the effects of cooking a Thanksgiving feast, there are some things to keep in mind, including the following:

• Commercial oven cleaners are generally very toxic. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) rated 12 oven cleaners on their safety. Of the 12, one product received a “C” grade and 11 received an “F.”

• Self-cleaning ovens aren’t a non-toxic option, either. Self-cleaning ovens are generally coated with Teflon or similar chemicals. See the previous post titled “Sticky Chemicals” for more information on the dangers of PFCs. The burning of food particles during the self-cleaning cycle may also release small amounts of carbon monoxide and there may be fumes released from the oven’s insulation, including formaldehyde. Most oven manufacturers recommend opening windows, running ventilation fans, and/or leaving the house while the self-cleaning function is operating. Many also recommend removing pets from the home. In a Healthy Home Tip article, the EWG noted that the flu-like symptoms that people often get from heated Teflon-like chemicals are so common that they have been given a name by scientists: “Polymer fume fever.”

• It’s possible to clean an oven safely. There are many “recipes” that have been used successfully. Some people just use baking soda and water. Others use baking soda and vinegar. One blogger posted her recipe for using baking soda and dish soap, which is similar to what I usually do, except that I use a fragrance-free dish soap made by Seventh Generation. Other methods that have been recommended are to use a pumice stick or citrus peels.

Here's what works for me.

In the evening I make a paste of baking soda, water, and fragrance-free dish soap. I apply this to the oven interior. I then boil a pot of water on the stove. When it’s boiling nicely, I remove it from the stove, stick it in the oven, and close the oven door. This allows the oven to fill with steam. I leave everything alone until morning, at which time I wipe away all the gunk. After everything looks clean, I go over everything again with water or vinegar just to make sure I’ve removed all the residue. That’s it. It almost always works. Occasionally there’s a stubborn spot that remains, but some combination of baking soda, water, and time always removes it.

The chemical industry wants us to believe that our choices are harsh chemicals, filth, or exhausting work. It isn’t true. Let’s show them we know better.

School Challenges and Victories

Avoiding chemical toxins is important for people of all ages, but may be especially crucial for children and teenagers, because their brains are still developing and because smaller bodies can detoxify less before becoming overwhelmed. For this reason, schools are an important focus in the battle for cleaner, healthier air.

This is a good news/bad news post focusing on two recent school stories. The first comes from Investigate West and addresses the dangers of building schools near large roadways and their associated pollutants. The author notes that evidence links proximity to heavily-traveled roads to asthma, lung problems and higher absenteeism among students but that, despite the evidence, policymakers in many locations have ignored clearly-presented risks and continue to build schools where exposure to traffic fumes is high.

At least six states have addressed the placement of school buildings near major traffic sources. California prohibits their construction within 500 feet of freeways under most circumstances and five other states have some sort of similar guidelines. In eight states, building near a major roadway is not prohibited, but school districts are asked to consider the issue.

The article notes that 36 states have no restrictions on building schools near environmental hazards. It also notes that in 2008 and 2009, separate groups of officials meeting in Olympia, Washington and Washington, D.C. considered restricting construction of schools near major roadways, but decided against taking action. An environmental health expert guessed at the reason. He noted, “They didn’t want to open that Pandora’s box. They knew that if they were to put exclusion criteria in there, it would raise these questions about schools already sitting in these hazardous zones, and reasonably so. Parents would say, ’My kids are at risk.’ And then what?”

The second story is a video that comes from a Fox affiliate station in Nashville and addresses cleaning products. The mother of a chemically sensitive child is interviewed and reports that, after four years of trying, she was able to convince her son’s school to replace toxic cleaning products with safer ones. A worker from Whole Foods Market is also interviewed and notes that the demand for safer cleaning products is growing. Finally, a specialist certified with LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) talks about the cumulative effects of exposures and how the rates of learning disabilities, autism, asthma, and other conditions have skyrocketed.

Hurray for helpful news stories and for small victories with cleaning products. Boo for inaction on the part of policymakers. Hurray for mothers who work hard to protect their children. Boo for everything that makes it harder for them to do so.

Greenwashing

Last week, I wrote about “pinkwashing,” which is rampant in the month of October. The more common form of color deception, however, is greenwashing, which occurs all year long. Greenwashing is the practice of making misleading claims about a product’s environmental benefits.

A major problem with the term “green” as it is commonly used is that “the environment” is often narrowly defined. The focus tends to be on a handful of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, the indoor environments in which people spend most of their time are often overlooked.

Even those products that take a wider view of the environment and claim to be non-toxic often aren’t. An article on “green” cleaning products notes that one of the most widely-used products in the category contains up to four percent of a chemical known as 2-butoxyethanol. The substance is a petrochemical solvent linked to a wide range of problems including cancer, osteoarthritis, reproductive problems, and birth defects. The article reported on a study that analyzed 25 cleaning products, half of which claimed to be green, organic, or natural. The products emitted a total of 133 different chemicals, about one fourth of which are classified as toxic or hazardous. Every product emitted at least one chemical known to be toxic.

A publication entitled "The Sins of Greenwashing" lists the following problems with “green” claims:

• Sin of the Hidden Trade-off – Focusing on one set of attributes while ignoring other important factors

• Sin of No Proof – Making unsubstantiated claims that aren’t verified by reliable third parties

• Sin of Vagueness – Making claims that are broad or poorly defined

• Sin of Irrelevance – Making claims that are true, but irrelevant, such as claiming to be free of chemicals that have already been banned

• Sin of Lesser of Two Evils – Making claims that are true, but distract from larger risks

• Sin of Fibbing – Making claims that are simply false

• Sin of Worshiping False Labels – Implying falsely, through words or images, that a product has been endorsed by a third party.

Although greenwashing is rampant, some labels and terms mean more than others do. As I wrote in a previous post, Consumer Reports maintains a website with a label search function which can be helpful. Labeling can be misleading and inconsistent, but that doesn’t mean that all products are created equal. Some are definitely less problematic than others.

As in other areas of chemical toxicity, it’s important to work for change while simultaneously doing what we can now to protect ourselves and those around us. Truly “green” cleaning, for example, is really not hard to achieve. As I noted in a previous post on cleaning, water is the universal solvent. Vinegar, lemon juice, baking soda and castile soap can also clean many, many things. The internet is full of recipes, hints, and suggestions. There are a lot of things that are hard to control. It makes sense to control what we can.

Safer Schools

August is back-to-school time for many, and a good time to discuss safer schools and school supplies. Many "school supplies" are items commonly used by people of all ages, whether at home, school, or work, and the principles used to make a school healthy apply to all buildings. Being aware of less toxic options is important for everyone. Here's some help:

• The Healthy Schools Network is a national environmental health organization focused on ensuring that every child has a healthy learning environment. Informational guides, posters and reports can be downloaded or ordered from their Healthy Schools/Healthy Kids Clearinghouse,

• The Environmental Protection Agency provides information on creating healthy indoor environments in schools. They help schools connect through the National Schools Network and provide an “IAQ Tools for Schools” action kit which can be downloaded or ordered free of charge.

• Schools wanting help designing a non-toxic pest management program can find it on a page associated with The Best Control. The program is available to any school district.

• A group called NonToxic Revolution, concerned primarily with stopping breast and other cancers, offers students help in starting campus clubs.

• The Environmental Working Group offers information on making healthier choices when purchasing a variety of products, including backpacks, lunch boxes, beverage bottles, markers, pencils, pens, notebooks, binders, paper products, and glue.

• The Center for Health, Environment, and Justice focuses on products made with PVC (vinyl). Their back-to-school guide to PVC-Free School Supplies lists less-toxic options for a wide range of common items, including binders, name badges, paper clips, pencil cases, glasses, sneakers, cellphones, computer monitors, flash drives, raincoats, and umbrellas.

• MCS America provides a brief and simple-to-understand factsheet with 10 tips for keeping school environments and chemically sensitive students healthy.

Lowering the toxic load is important for people of all ages, but the younger the student, the more important it is to take the issue seriously. Seemingly small changes in an environment can sometimes make a big difference in the mental and physical state of those who inhabit it. Let’s keep our students healthy and give them the best chance possible to grow, thrive, and learn.

What Does Clean Mean?

A recent study determined that developing asthma was strongly associated with the workplace environment. The researchers associated 18 jobs with an increased risk of developing the condition. Four of these were cleaning jobs, and three more were noted to involve likely exposure to cleaning products.

This is far from the first study to correlate asthma and cleaning products. In 2006, a literature review determined that "accumulating, consistent evidence” linked asthma risk and cleaning work. In 2010, the same journal re-visited the issue. In an article entitled "Update on Asthma and Cleaners," the authors noted that further studies had verified and strengthened the link between jobs in the cleaning industry and evidence of asthma. They added that others who worked around and with cleaning products, such as homemakers and healthcare professionals, showed similar effects. Other articles and studies have also made that point. A study examining people who cleaned their own homes found that the use of cleaning sprays at least weekly was associated with asthma symptoms.

In a previous post I mentioned the need to think about what the word "fresh" really means. Similarly, I think it's wise to ponder the word "clean." Is coating a surface with chemicals that cause asthma and other health effects making it clean? I don't think so.

There are many non-toxic options for cleaning. The cheapest and most basic cleaning aid is water. It’s known as the universal solvent because of its ability to dissolve more materials than any other substance. The power of pure water can be enhanced with such things as heat (using a steam cleaner, for instance), pressure (using a pressure washer), time (soaking an item for a while), or special applicators, such as microfiber cloths. Water alone can’t clean everything, but it can clean more than we’re likely to give it credit for.

Sometimes the goal is simply to make a surface free of visible dirt. Other times the goal is to disinfect. Water can do that, too. The heat of a steam cleaner can kill germs, of course, but water doesn't have to be heated to perform that task. A test of various disinfectant products used to clean a computer keyboard found that “all disinfectants, as well as the sterile water control, were effective at removing or inactivating more than 95% of the test bacteria.” In other words, wiping for five seconds with clean water was as effective as wiping for five seconds with bleach, alcohol, or the other disinfectant wipes tested.

Another study of disinfectants also verified the power of water (salt water in this case) to disinfect. Researchers at the University of Alberta looked at whether a quick swipe with an antibacterial product was enough to disinfect a surface. They found that it was not, and that three passes was the optimal number. Interestingly, they also found that three wipes with a salt-water solution were equally effective. The authors note, “When the surface was swiped three or more times, the saline wipe appeared to be equally effective as disinfectant wipes.”

Let’s refuse to believe the marketing hype. Let’s protect our own health and the health of those around us by refusing to use products that are not only unnecessary, but harmful. Let’s think about what “clean” really means.